From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. M/V "CCNI ANTARTICO"

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 15, 2002
02 Civ. 0087 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2002)

Opinion

02 Civ. 0087 (LAK).

August 15, 2002


ORDER


Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Local Civ.R. 6.3, for reargument of the Court's order, dated July 31, 2002, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint following the Court's failure to receive any opposing papers despite the time within which to file them had expired. It attaches to its motion a copy of a cover letter, dated July 29, 2002, transmitting opposing papers to the Court. The letter was received in chambers after the motion for summary judgment was decided.

Local Civ.R. 6.3 may be employed only to draw the Court's attention to matters that were before it but that may have been overlooked. As the docket sheet demonstrates, and as plaintiff's current papers tacitly concede, plaintiff failed to file timely opposing papers. The opposing papers were due on or about July 15, 2002 or, perhaps, as late as July 18, 2002. Courtesy copies were received in chambers on July 31, 2002, after the motion was decided, and the originals were received in the Clerk's office on August 5, 2002. Putting the best face on it, answering papers were about two weeks late and were received only after the Court decided the motion for summary judgment. Thus, there were no opposing papers before the Court that could have been overlooked.

It also forbids the submission of evidentiary material absent court approval, a provision disregarded by plaintiff's attachment of the purported July 29, 2002 letter.

Nor does plaintiff have much claim on a favorable exercise of the Court's discretion. It could have sought an extension of time within which to respond to the motion, an application that routinely would have been granted. Its failure to do so resulted in the Court giving substantive attention to the file, deciding a substantive motion, and writing a reasoned if brief decision. It required more attention that simple signing a default. Plaintiff simply does not have the right, by virtue of its own carelessness, to impose on the Court's resources to consider the same motion a second time.

Motion denied.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. M/V "CCNI ANTARTICO"

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 15, 2002
02 Civ. 0087 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2002)
Case details for

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. M/V "CCNI ANTARTICO"

Case Details

Full title:FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. M/V "CCNI ANTARTICO"…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 15, 2002

Citations

02 Civ. 0087 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2002)